Name:
Location: Missouri, United States

(1960- ) American writer, humorist, and biblical scholar.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Curiosity and the Kat

Alan's response left me somewhat unfulfilled and his performance was less than satisfying, so I felt I should seek more input by posting this:

I don’t believe I ever suggested that you shut up, on the contrary, I asked you a series of questions and I was hoping you would enlighten us by answering them- which would of course require that you continue to speak. I also provided the biblical references as illustration of the Christian principles to which I was referring. I am respectfully asking that you address my questions and not make assumptions about me personally - if as you say this is about open discourse. I will reiterate the questions for you:

Are you setting a good Christian example by being “blunt” with people you know don’t respect your beliefs? You started this debate when you first posted on the Tempest. Did you do so with the intent to persuade their readership to “see the light” or did you have some other goal in mind? You seem to think that there was some violation of right that occurred but the only right we are worried about is the legal one. Was anything done that was illegal, no. Do we care if you think it was immoral and that a good person wouldn’t do something like that. No.

Is it right for you to call someone a thief? It seems your whole purpose in posting is to shame him publicly in some way and to what end, I’d really like to know. (It won’t work by the way – he has no shame and he’s just playing with you like a cat toy).
Do not accuse a man for no reason— when he has done you no harm. Proverbs 3:30.
Should you not follow Christ’s example? I was suggesting you might try being like Christ and ignore Daniel’s insults. Tempest chose the forum, not me. It was only after he responded immaturely, insulted me repeatedly and then closed my ability to reply to the insults that I chose to post here. What was the point of your post - by that I mean what did you intend the result to be of your action? You seem to be happy that you got Daniel “worked up” but you misinterpret the context. We find you funny. You are providing fodder for our amusement. We could care less about what you think of us or the outcome of this debate (except of course blood shed should be avoided). We are firmly convinced that you cannot be dissuaded from your beliefs and therefore cannot take you seriously. On the other hand, we are always hoping one of you people will stand up and justify your actions in the context of your religion. You know like “Christ told me to post this to save your soul”

As for ...attacks on Christianity, why do you even care? Daniel has his reasons for his dislike of the right wing conservative fanatics and I was raised by one. If you take up their cause, he will just continue to insult you and expose you to public ridicule. Although I will try to remind him to stay away from casting aspersions on your character or manhood. Again why are you wasting your time with this? Go celebrate already:

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Matthew 5
You said, “Jesus never said we are to not defend ourselves when attacked, just that we aren't meant to respond in kind.” Explain that please and then please explain this passage to me:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. Matthew 5.

Can I please have $10,000?

But shouldn’t they be held to the standard of the religion they profess to be part of? You said “Christian's all accept they are fallible and will not be able to perfectly reflect biblical teachings” to me this sounds like an excuse to be as nasty and evil as they want and still claim to be good Christians. Aren’t you guys supposed to be following your own rules? We non-believers don’t have that problem except for, you know, that pesky constitution and uh, laws.

Shouldn’t you as a fellow Christian be more concerned, like Paul, with chastising them than arguing with a self-proclaimed non-believer?

6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. Titus 2:6-8

If their fellow Christians will not call them on their behavior, does that mean they can go around threatening people, desecrating funerals and being generally nasty until judgment day? These actions drive people away from Christianity and aren’t you concerned about that? Isn’t the grand mission to convert everyone to Christianity? How will this be accomplished if you can’t all agree on what Christianity is?

Lastly, please understand, we aren’t trying to be Christians. We don’t want to be Christians. So trying to apply Christian standards to our behavior is pointless. On the other hand, you guys have this big book of stuff you are supposed to be modeling for the world. We’re just suggesting there’s a big group of you all that aren’t doing a very good job. If you want to discuss that further, go for it.

Oh and in this country, our senators work for us and if we want to send them emails - it’s allowed. Brownback is a big boy, he doesn’t need you to protect him from sarcasm. Flooding politician’s inboxes with identical emails is a traditional American political action tactic that is used by both sides. It’s stupid, pointless, but it’s an American right.
posted by Kat B 13/8/06 4:11 AM

Continue

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home